Several factors have led to increased efforts by psychologists to include culture in the study of personality:
- The rejuvenation of the concept of trait brought about by the Big Five Factor model.
- The understanding that this model offers a comprehensive and universal framework on the structure of personality.
- The formulation of the constructs of individualism and collectivism at the cultural level, and of idiocentrism and allocentrism at the individual level.
- The emergence of indigenous psychologies.
- Multicultural movements and the need for integration of people from different cultures in industrialized countries.
- The incorporation of methodological improvements in cross-cultural research.
- The increase in globalization and universality of scientific research promoted by new technologies (Internet). Approaches to the study of personality-culture relationships.
Three perspectives have been followed when studying the relationships between personality and culture. Cross-cultural perspective includes:
- Comparison of multiple societies to search for cultural universals.
- Consideration of culture as external to the individual and that can be used to predict personality and behavior.
- Use of questionnaires and psychometric scales, relatively free of contextual influences.
- Concern for the equivalence and cross-cultural nature of constructs and their measures.
- Focus on individual differences, taking culture as an independent variable that can affect the expression and correlates of traits.
The NEO-PI-R has been translated into more than 30 languages and in each of the cultures in which it has been applied, the 5-factor structure is replicated. Cultural perspective includes:
- Instead of looking for universals, it focuses on descriptions of psychological phenomena in one or more cultures.
- Emphasis is placed on the study of the psychological functioning of culture (structure and dynamics).
- Qualitative methods are used above all.
- It is more concerned with processes than traits.
- A permanent transaction between individual and culture is postulated, advocating the use of interactive methodology.
- The self is socially constructed and, therefore, its conception will vary from one culture to another.
From this perspective, it is emphasized that the different conception of personality depending on culture comes from the level of dependence or independence with which the self is defined. The independent view of personality (West) is characterized by the following ideas:
- A person is an autonomous being, defined by a peculiar and distinctive set of attributes, qualities or processes.
- The configuration of the attributes or internal processes causes the behavior.
- We can know a person through their actions.
- The behavior of individuals varies because some differ from others in their configuration of internal processes and attributes, a distinction that, in this conception, would be positive.
- People express their qualities and internal processes in their behavior, so behavior is expected to be consistent in different situations and stable over time.
- The study of personality is important because it allows us to predict and control behavior.
The interdependent vision of personality (Asia, Africa, Latin America, Mediterranean countries) is characterized by the following ideas:
- A person is an interdependent entity that is part of a close social relationship.
- Behavior would be the response that the person gives to the members of the group of which he or she is a part.
- To know a person, we must analyze the actions of their group.
- Just as a social context can vary, an individual’s behavior also varies from one situation to another and from one moment in time to another. This sensitivity to the social context would be the sign of good adaptation.
- The study of personality is important because it leads to a better understanding of the interpersonal nature of behavior.
indigenous perspective
It focuses on the need to formulate a theory, define constructs especially salient in a culture, and use methods that reflect indigenous cultural contexts. Needs and problems that differ from those traditionally studied in Western or Euro-American psychology are studied.
Methodological implications.
Studies of the cultural psychological approach examine personality in a specific cultural context, while cross-cultural studies examine and compare personality in different cultures. Both strategies are necessary. It is important to take into account, in cross-cultural comparisons, the translation made of the scales and the different response biases that may appear in some cultures or others. Under this joint perspective, aspects of a culture that are universal, aspects that are common to several cultures, and finally, aspects that are unique to a culture can be analyzed. In cross-cultural studies, two strategies can be followed: Structure-oriented studies, which focus on analyzing the relationships (through correlations or factorial procedures) between personality dimensions. Culture is a VI that affects the manifestation, level and correlate of traits.
Some causal determination is also possible (for example, whether self-esteem and harmonious relationships relate to well-being the same in the US as in China). Level-oriented studies attempt to explore whether cultures are different in a certain trait (whether Koreans are more conservative than Americans). In this case, contextual variables, whether personal or cultural, could be used to explain the differences that appear. Cultural psychologists consider personality and culture to be interrelated and mutually dependent. The concept of personality is considered socially constructed and variable from one culture to another. They focus more on the evaluation of the self, preferring a more qualitative methodology. Studies that compare the self in different cultures (if there are more ideocentric responses in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic ones) the results are not clear.
Proposal for the integration of different perspectives.
The three previous approaches can be complementary. Thus, cross-cultural psychologists would analyze: a) how the same universal traits are manifested in different cultures, and b) what means each culture provides for individuals to express their personality traits. Despite the differences, it is possible to integrate approaches focused on traits (cross-cultural) or focused on psychological processes of each culture (idiocentrism-allocentrism), if we take into account that the fact that there are universal and genetically based traits can:
- Influencing the way one processes and reacts to cultural stimuli, constituting an important source of individual variability in behavior.
- Contribute to the maintenance or change of cultural practices and institutions.
- Influencing the person’s selection of situations within their environment. At the same time, culture will affect the way traits are expressed in different contexts. Its influence will be especially evident in the intermediate units (values, goals, beliefs or habits), that is, in how culture is processed, filtered, ignored or accepted. This integrative perspective includes inherited and universal traits that would be prior to the cultural influences that the individual receives, but their manifestation in behavior would be affected by culture.
Thus, we can say that universal aspects (ethical dimensions) and specific aspects of culture (emic dimensions) converge in personality. The similarities found in cross-cultural studies would be considered ethical dimensions, while the differences would be emic dimensions. Idiocentric (individualistic) and allocentric (collectivistic): Personality characteristics and psychological correlates.
Collectivism and allocentrics have been associated with courtesy, humility, dependence, empathy, self-control, self-sacrifice, conformity, traditionalism and cooperativeness; and individualism and idiocentrics with independence, pleasure-seeking, assertiveness, creativity, curiosity, competitiveness, initiative, self-confidence and openness. Idiocentrics tend toward dominance, are competitive, and are motivated by achievement. Allocentrics tend to be affable, are more receptive and adjust more to the needs of others. People in collectivistic cultures see themselves as interdependent with their membership groups, which provide them with a stable social environment to adjust to, so that their personality is more flexible. People in individualistic cultures view their personality (self) as stable and the social environment as changeable, so they attempt to shape the social environment to fit their personalities.
Thus, in Western culture, when a person perceives that they have little control over their surroundings or do not like the life they lead, they are encouraged to change it; In Eastern culture, what is valued is the effort to achieve harmony with the situation and adjust to it. Allocentrics tend to define themselves by reference to social entities, and tend to use external factors (such as context or situation) to describe others. Idiocentrics use traits to describe others and focus more on internal dispositions.
In individualistic cultures, more positive emotions of pride and personal satisfaction are experienced; In collectivists, they are interpersonal emotions, such as satisfaction with the success of friends, and respect or admiration for the group’s achievements. People in individualistic cultures show more self-esteem and optimism than those in collectivistic cultures, because these factors are associated with subjective well-being in these cultures; In collectivist ones, well-being is associated with compliance with social norms. Thus, allocentrics receive more social support and are less likely to feel lonely. In summary: Traits exist in all cultures, but they predict behavior more in individualistic ones.